Finally I'm getting around to listen to @mike 's Dot.Social episode with @rklambo and @pcottle from #meta, talking about #threads.

[j12t@social.coop]

Mike: What are the main concerns?

Rachel: fair share of criticism. Trying to approach this as a good citizen.

Pulling the rug out of it now would also impact very negatively the overall story Meta has been trying to build about open source and how they engage with the community.

[j12t@social.coop]

Shout-out to @mike: he's asking #Meta all the good questions about federation and beyond on his dot.social podcast.

Now: do you see federation more broadly as it relates to (other parts of) Meta, like Instagram and other social products you have?

Nor surprisingly, he gets a bit of a non-answer: it's early days, we have a lot to learn, how are people reacting etc.

[j12t@social.coop]

@pcottle adds that in his view, the fediverse makes more sense for public conversations, as opposed to his example of his own Instagram profile that he has set to private.

[j12t@social.coop]

Both Rachel and Peter suggest that some moderation functionality could/should become part of the protocol stack. #AtProto does composable moderation and that is really cool. Peter hopes that #ActivityPub may learn from it and evolve in this direction.

[j12t@social.coop]

Rachel: one of the challenges with the fediverse is: how do you figure out where your content went, and how can I follow that conversation that now exists on multiple different servers?

Wants all replies in the same spot. That helps feel people in control.

This is actually a really good point imho. It's not just confusing that reply trees aren't eventually consistent across the fediverse, but it creates uncertainty because I don't even know what people say in response.

[j12t@social.coop]

Peter: one of the advantages of #ActivityPub is that you can limit exposure to other servers.

#AtProto is all public, and that's another reason why #ActivityPub is a better match for Meta.

[j12t@social.coop]

Rachel: re monitization, so far we are only focused on giving people a great experience on Threads

Going forward, they want to hear from lots of people and communities and regulators before they figure out what is acceptable and what not.

Peter: quotes a session from @fediforum where business models were discussed.

Mike: there will be many business models.

[j12t@social.coop]

Mike: "one of the original sins of the internet is that the relationship between the person and a website was not done at the protocol level. I see the fediverse with the ability to have a direct relationship as a core answer to them treating people with respect."

This is as close as a #VRM pitch as I have heard from somebody who hasn't been part of the VRM community! https://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Main_Page

[j12t@social.coop]

Peter is thanking the community working so well together and help debug bugs live!

"We are all on team fediverse!"

[j12t@social.coop]

Listen to the podcast yourself here: https://dot-social.simplecast.com/episodes/threads-OrGZJIHN

[julian]

@[email protected] said in Finally I'm getting around to listen to @mike 's Dot.Social episode with @rklambo and @pcottle from #meta, talking about #threads.:

Rachel: one of the challenges with the fediverse is: how do you figure out where your content went, and how can I follow that conversation that now exists on multiple different servers?

Something ForumWG is actively researching at present. A lot of the fediverse is built on reply chains, fragmented ones, but there's a better path forward, and we're figuring out just how to do it.

You shouldn't ever have to "view original post" except out of a sense of curiosity.

[j12t@social.coop]

@julian Where are you having that conversation?

[julian]

@[email protected] follow the category here: @[email protected] (although the handle will change at some point) for latest updates and discussion

[jfrantzius@mozilla.social]

@J12t interesting, as to Meta's motivation, there was no mentioning of DSA. Of course they wouldn't term it as throwing a bone to the regulators, but not mentioning it at all leaves a slightly uncomfortable taste for me.